Public piles on net neutrality debate

A blistering battle over net neutrality has the Federal Communications Commission hearing an earful — and from more than just the usual torrent of lobbyists and lawyers who swarm the chairman’s eighth-floor office.

“Eliminating net neutrality is wrong for America,” warned Carolyn from Kennewick, Washington, one of roughly 69,000 people to write the agency so far about its proposed open Internet rules. “Do not change the Internet,” pleaded David from San Antonio. “In fairness to all users,” added Debie from Gaston, Oregon, “do not allow these gluttonous internet providers any more corrupting power.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

Even beyond the Beltway, critics have pilloried the country’s top telecommunications regulator as it weighs new rules to ensure that all Web traffic is treated equally. The debate over net neutrality has always been controversial and complicated — for consumers, companies and courts alike. But Chairman Tom Wheeler’s new blueprint has triggered a reaction far more intense than what might typically greet the early stages of an FCC proceeding.

Many commenters — and members of Congress — bemoan publicly that they have more questions than answers. They fear Wheeler’s approach might create a Web in which companies or consumers have to pay for faster access to the movies and other content they desire, though the chairman has assured otherwise. Adding to the trouble, intense lobbying from all sides of the fight only has imbued the issue with a new alarmism.

As a result, the FCC’s online system for public comments ground to a halt Monday, thanks in part to comedian John Oliver, who urged viewers of his HBO show to contact the agency. It marked only the latest, most high-profile indication yet that net neutrality had touched an unprecedented national nerve.

“It’s an extraordinary demonstration of how much people care about the Internet, and how it has functioned for them, and they don’t want that changed,” Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), an ardent net neutrality supporter, said in an interview. “They’re fearful about it.”

The FCC for years has struggled to incorporate some form of net neutrality rules. Inheriting the agency as it suffered its latest court defeat, Wheeler earlier in May produced an open Internet order that tracks closely with federal judges’ recommendations. But many net neutrality advocates — from Free Press to Google and Mozilla to a torrent of venture capitalists — quickly charged that Wheeler’s plan would create online “fast lanes.”

An FCC official reaffirmed this week that the chairman doesn’t believe in so-called paid prioritization. “If the record demonstrates that’s not possible,” the aide said, “then he’s open-minded to a different way forward.”

But the chairman’s reassurances haven’t silenced consumer groups, which say Wheeler’s statements differ from what he has actually proposed. Nor has it satisfied lawmakers, who grilled Wheeler about potential “fast lanes” at a hearing earlier this month. Further lost in translation is that the alternative — treating broadband as a utility — still might allow Internet providers to strike some special deals with content makers.

The many layers of political and legal complexity have only bred deep confusion and skepticism that have far transcended Washington.

There’s Ryan from Royal Oak, Michigan, who wrote in his public comment earlier this month that “people making decisions on the internet” at the FCC “know NOTHING about how the internet even works!”

Another commenter resorted to snark: “[T]he internet is not a theme park, it does not need a fast pass like 6 flags. [D]o you remember … kids trying to cut in front of you in line in middle school? [T]hat sh— sucked didn’t it?”